Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to preliminary amendment filed on 9/25/24. Claims 2-7,9-11 are amended. Claims 1-11 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1: Lines 3,6,7-8,10 the recitation of “ the total weight” does not have proper antecedent basis. Line 11, the recitation of “ the weight” does not have proper antecedent basis. The limitation of ratio of PPO to POP from 0-.05 is vague and indefinite. The claim recites 51.0-92% POP + PPO; it’s unclear how the ratio can include 0. The recitation requires both POP and PPO.
Claims 2-6 have the same problem as claim 1.
In claim 7, the recitation of “ the vegetable fat composition” does not have antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites vegetable fat phase, not vegetable fat composition.
Claim 10 is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what applicant intends to claim. The method comprises the step of addition of the vegetable fat phase according to claim 1 but it’s unclear what is being added to what; the vegetable fat phase is added to what? Furthermore, the fat composition recited in claim 1 already comprises the vegetable phase. The limitation “ the fat composition employed for bakery, dairy or confectionary filling application” is vague because it’s unclear what employed indicates. Employed is not an actual processing step. The limitation “ chocolate-like spreads” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what chocolate-like indicates; what quality or characteristic would be considered as chocolate-like?
In claim 11, the limitation “ chocolate-like” has the same problem as claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara ( 2015/0093492).
For claims 1-6, Uehara discloses a fat composition comprising vegetable fat phase. The vegetable fat comprising triglyceride in amount of not less than 95%, an X2O in amount of 50-90% and XOX of not more than 50%, preferably 10-35% ( thus the combine amount falls within the claimed ranges), P20 amount of 20-55% and the P2O including PPO+POP, and St2O amount of 1-20% including StStO+StOSt wherein X is saturated fatty acid having 16-24 carbon atoms, O is oleic acid, P is palmitic acid and St is stearic acid. ( see paragraphs 0015-0027,0057,0058,0063)
For claim 7, the oil and fat used in the fat composition includes cotton seed oil, sunflower oil etc.. ( see paragraph 0078)
For claims 9,10, 11, Uehara discloses the fat composition is used in oil-based food products such as chocolate and cream which can be a spreading fat or filling because there is no limitation defining spreading fat or filling. The fat composition is blended in amount of 5-100% in the oil-based food product. For claim 10, the claim is indefinite as explained in the 112 rejection above. For prior art application, it’s interpreted that the fat composition is added to ingredients to make the food products such as chocolate. Uehara discloses adding the fat composition to other ingredients to make the oil-based food products. ( see paragraphs 0096-0104)
Uehara does not disclose the specific ratio of PPO/POP as in claims 1, 6.
Uehara discloses the range of P2O falling within the claimed range. Thus, it’s obvious the ratio can be selected to be within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara ( 2015/0093492) in view of the article by Sengupta et al “ Triglyceride Composition of Madhuca butyraceae ( pulwara butter) Seed Fat.
Sengupta et al discloses the fatty acid and triglyceride composition of phulwara butter. Sengupta et al discloses that the phulwara butter is similar to cocoa butter in the content of saturated acids. ( see abstract, table V and page 623)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use phulwara butter as using an alternative known source of fat to perform the same function of providing fat for the composition. One would also have been motivated to use phulwara butter because it’s similar to cocoa butter and the fat composition in Uehara is used for chocolate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Wednesday, June 24, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights